Page 741 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 17 March 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
shop greater than 1,000 square metres. In these cases, the lessee can build to the existing size. I also directed the Planning and Land Authority to remove from the variation the proposed changes to gross floor area for shops in group and town centres. This means the current floor area limits will continue to apply. Aside from formatting changes to the variation, no other changes were made to the variation before I approved it.
Prior to the early 1990s, almost all local centres had a supermarket. By 2011, despite actions to widen land uses permitted in local centres and higher residential densities being permitted in adjacent areas, some 30 per cent of local centres no longer had a supermarket. This was primarily a result of changes in retail expenditure patterns. Without intervention, it is likely this trend will continue. The policy will assist local centres to continue to operate as supermarket locations and provide convenience retailing to surrounding populations. This is dependent, of course, on other factors influencing these centres, such as catchment size, location and site constraints.
Draft variation 304 was released for public comment between 22 March 2013 and 6 May 2013. It attracted 14 public submissions. The main concerns raised in these submissions related to the proposed floor area limits, the introduction of the term “net selling area”, the potential impacts on retail hierarchy, and the realignment of commercial zone boundaries in the group centres in Holt, Macquarie, Mawson and Wanniassa.
These issues were raised primarily by stakeholders in retail trade in the ACT, and they raised some valid points. I can advise that several of the proposed provisions have been revised accordingly. The concept of the net selling area has been removed. The proposed increases to gross floor area limits for shops in group and town centres have been removed and the commercial zone boundaries in the four group centres will remain as they are.
I can also advise that the proposed limit on gross floor area of shops in local centres has been revised down from 1,500 square metres to 1,000 square metres. By limiting the size of shops and supermarkets at local centres, the potential impacts of local centre expansion on other centres are reduced and the retail hierarchy is maintained. While the 1,000-square-metre limit is slightly larger than the supermarkets operating at most existing centres, the most vibrant and successful local centres have the larger floor spaces. The increased floor area limits offer scope for local centres to provide a wider range of goods to enable them to be more competitive with supermarkets found at town and group centres. It also allows for redevelopment or reinvestment in those shopping centres which already have a GFA higher than the 1,000 square metres to redevelop up to the existing GFA. I believe the concerns raised during community consultation have been adequately considered and that there are no outstanding issues.
Before I move on to discussing the other two variations I am tabling today, I want to make the point that variation 304 and its reduction to GFA in local centres does not in any way preclude any one retailer from developing or redeveloping a local or group centre. It does not intend to favour any one retailer over another. What it does is protect the hierarchy of our supermarkets at local, group and town centres for the benefit of all. We know a viable, thriving and well-patronised supermarket also helps
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video